Thursday, 28 May 2015

Thoughts on Authority, Leadership and the Wild Youth

China is on pace to become the global leader in renewable energy (Worldwatch 2015). Iran’s Supreme leader refuses access to military sites and scientists (Euronews 2015). Wife of Islamic State leader Abu Sayyaf captured in Delta Force raid that killed her husband (News Limited 2015).

Strewn throughout the media, the word ‘leader’ is being used to describe a wide variety of people and organizations. These ‘leaders’ are often self-proclaimed, or described as such for some political or social benefit. To be called a leader is to be isolated from the masses, to be seen as more valuable, more capable. I am sure the morale boost in the American army increases greatly when an ISIL ‘leader’ is killed in combat. To use the word ‘general’ or ‘captain’ in place of ‘leader’ makes the threat seem more structured, and the target less valuable. There is this sense that commanders admirals and other authority figures can be replaced, they are merely components of a greater whole. Whereas leaders are those who inspire and empower, and as such, calling the higher powers of an enemy army ‘leaders’ makes them special. When they are gone, they are gone forever.
 
More permanent change is often more celebrated, such as birth, marriage, graduation. Calling someone a leader is almost like advertising, a shiny coat on an otherwise dull affair, drawing in people’s attention.Is the word leadership being used as it should? It is really truly valued? Or has this phrase been reduced in importance to sit with other words such as ‘ultra’ and ‘perfect’ or titles such as ‘the honourable’?

The disparity between what the word is used for and what it should mean has been covered in a variety of session at university as well as in books on leadership theory. The common view on this matter is quite simple; exercising authority and leadership are opposing activities, in fact leaders do not exist, leadership is a verb not a job (Heifetz et al. 2009). Leadership is not about meeting or exceeding your authorizer’s expectations; it is about challenging some of those expectations, finding a way to disappoint people without pushing them completely over the edge (Heifetz et al. 2009).

At first I was very open to the idea. A simple dichotomy, it was so neat and tidy, there were those who exercised leadership and diverged from the status quo, and those who exercised authority and maintained it. This view was particularly appealing to people like me; the young and energetic, the protestors and activists, those who would sometimes find themselves fighting against authority just for the sake of it. In this way, the wild youth are almost encouraged to stand up and practice leadership, to disrupt the status quo, to fight against the nemesis of authority. Examples were thrown around, Stalin was an authority figure, Nelson Mandala practiced leadership. A policeman is an authority figure, an innovator practices leadership.

Leadership was out there, away from the formal authority which politicians and policemen possess, and informal authority which celebrities and venerated individuals have (Heifetz et al. 2009). However, Glenn L Barnes, the Chairman of Ansell who came to talk to us about leadership, particularly leadership in business, thought of leadership differently. He claimed that leaders possess all the traits of authority figures, exempt that they have the will to “step down from their position when it is best for the company.”

Realizing that there were differencing views on the subject spurred the start of my disagreement with the models I had been given. After discussing my ideas with some friends I decided to make my own ‘bigger’ and ‘better’ leadership theory.



Music: Piano Concerto No. 2 Sergei Vassilievitch Rachmaninov

References:

Worldwatch Institue 2015, China on Pace to Become Global Leader in Renewable Energy 2015, viewed 23 May 2015, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5497

Euronews 2015, Iran’s Supreme Leader refuses access to military sites and scientists, viewed 23 May 2015, http://www.euronews.com/2015/05/20/iran-s-supreme-leader-refuses-access-to-military-sites-and-scientists/

News Limited 2015, Wife of Islamic State leader Abu Sayyaf captured in Delta Force raid that killed her husband, viewed 23 May 2015, http://www.news.com.au/world/wife-of-islamic-state-leader-abu-sayyaf-captured-in-delta-force-raid-that-killed-her-husband/story-fndir2ev-1227359660758

Heifetz, R Grashow, A Linsky, M 2009, The practice of adaptive leadership, Cambridge Leadership Associates, Boston, Massachusetts.

Thursday, 14 May 2015

The Currency of the Entrepreneur


We all see people rise up to become leaders. All of us have heard of those self-made men and women who climbed the ladders of power. These individuals, at least to me, often seem almost unreal, not plagued by the trials and tribulations of us ordinary folk. Last Monday I was lucky enough to interview such a person, the esteemed Australian doctor and biotech entrepreneur: Hugo Stephenson.

Hugo has founded and cofounded a number of organisations, particularly in the field of biotechnology and pharmacology. He is known for creating the companies: MediGuard, Quintiles Transnational and Health Research Solutions. Hugo is best known for his work promoting research into drug safety and more consumer awareness, but is also a supporter of internet startups and entrepreneurialism. He is currently the Executive Chairmen of the clinical trials company DrugDev, though he is also working on other, smaller projects.
Hugo Stephenson, Executive Chairmen of DrugDev
Image courtesy of Eyeforpharma © 2015
http://social.eyeforpharma.com

My interview with Hugo was long and detailed; we talked over a light lunch at Giorgois café in Armadale. I asked him about his journey, his motivation, and what he felt about the science-entrepreneurial course I am currently a part of. From all the points he shared, one story in particular resonated very strongly with me.

I asked Hugo specifically how he created all of these businesses. How he got these great projects off the ground without much capital at all. For Hugo, the answers lay in his tale of two cafés:


Café number one says, “I’m going to get this place on High St because there is a lot of foot traffic. But I’m not very confident in myself, so I’d really like it to look really good so I can capture the interest of people who come past. In that situation what am I doing? I’m taking on a high rent and I’m asking for a lot of capital up front, bank loans, friends or family, to fit out the restaurant. So I sit inside all day and I polish the tables waiting for people to come in. The people will come in eventually, but it will take a lot longer than you ever think, for real revenue to come in, regardless of what business you are.” So you’re in an environment where you’ve started from behind.
In the second café, the guy turns around and says, “You know what, I’m going to get a much cheaper rent café, off the main strip. I may get one which has some pre-existing materials in there, may not even look that good. I’ll spend a bit of time putting a lick of pain on it but I’m not going to get a commercial fit out, absolute bare minimum. But every single day in the morning when its not busy, I’m going to walk to every business, knock on every door, stand at the train station with some flyers, offering free coffee to anyone who comes in. Coffee doesn’t cost much, it’s just your time. And I’m going to learn the name and record everybody that comes in, what their phone number is, start a loyalty card for them, if I haven’t seen them for a week I’ll text them.” The second café doesn’t need as much time becoming cash positive because this guy’s basically said, “What I lack in terms of location and in terms of set up, I’m going to make up for in terms of my time, and my energy. You know what, I’ll offer a dinner service, I’ll do whatever, I’ll just do everything but I’ll trade my time for something.”
I found this story extremely profound. It had a moral applying not only to business but also to leadership theory and problem solving in general.
Problems exist in two main forms: Technical problems can be resolved through the application of authoritative expertise, through an organization’s current structures, and ways of doing things. Whereas adaptive challenges can only be addressed through changes in people’s priorities, beliefs, habits and loyalties (Heifetz et al. 2009). To put it simply, a technical solution would be to change the product, but an adaptive solution would be to change the buyer.
Café one, in Hugo’s story, attempted to solve the problem of too few people entering their café, using technical means. Better location, a higher quality interior, and a more attractive exterior. This problem, however, is not really about the product, but more about the people buying it.
Café two attempted to solve this problem through adaptive means. By sacrificing time and effort, the café owner connected with people, encouraged them, and changed their habits. By offering loyalty cards, and becoming more human in the face of potential buyers, the owner of the second café was able to change how the people felt about the cafe, change their loyalties and excel.
There is also another aspect to this story, the difference in confidence. Confidence is one of the keys to effective leadership. Having confidence sets up the active side of your self-esteem, providing you with energy, inner strength and power (Avolio & Luthans 2006). A lack of drive and energy from self-confidence can cause time to so easily be wasted on trivial things, such as monotonously polishing the tables in a café, waiting for people to come in. With real confidence and drive, businessmen, entrepreneurs and leader can engage better with their audiences, buyers and team members and eventually lead to accelerated success as they tackle problems in a more adaptive way.
This concept was just one of many touched upon by Hugo in the wonderful interview I had with him. This experience has taken me to a new place on my journey, as I’ve come to realize that in the hands of those who wish to lead, time and human interaction are priceless gifts, more powerful than gold.

Find out more about Hugo Stephenson here:

References: 
Avolio, B Luthans, F 2006, The high impact leader, New York Publishing, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Heifetz, R Grashow, A Linsky, M 2009, The practice of adaptive leadership, Cambridge Leadership Associates, Boston, Massachusetts.


Sunday, 3 May 2015

Hanlon's Razor

Currently, as part of my tertiary education, I am required to read a fantastic book titled: The Practice of Adaptive Leadership by Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow and Marty Linsky. This book is filled with practical models and methods for carrying out acts of adaptive leadership, and discusses interesting concepts such as the use of an artificially created disequilibrium in order to nurture innovative change within a system (Heifetz 2009 p30). From this book, one particular segment jumped out at me: ‘The Illusion of the Broken System’ (Heifetz 2009 p17).

The reason this particular portion caught my attention was initially because I strongly disagreed with the subheading. I wholeheartedly believe that some systems can be broken, but this is not what this subchapter is truly about.

“Any social system is the way it is because those with the most leverage in the system want it that way” (Heifetz 2009 p17). This is the main thought this subchapter explores, and it terrifies me in its obvious simplicity. Famine, war, instability, terrorism, all issues which cannot be solved with resources alone, but require the mobilization of people, may exist solely because there are those among us who want them to exist.

This terrifying idea reminded me of a philosophical razor, often overused in my household:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" - Robert J. Hanlon

Oh I wish I could comfortably live by this law. My mother would often say this to me when I would whine about current affairs. When America's bloody wars in distant lands sparked terrorist action against their citizens. When Australia's treatment of refugees and asylum seekers caused suicide to become a preferable escape route from detention. When planes were shot down over lands occupied by fascist puppets and autocratic rebels. As if it was my duty as a reasonable human being to forgive these people, to dismiss their actions as merely the products of our broken system and their inability to 'think'.

If all these things are not caused by a broken system just as this book suggests, then there are perpetrators of these crimes. Those who strive for progressive change have enemies actively seeking to undermine them.


The enemies of progress, and their loyal army.
Image created by Andrew Jones, http://androidjones.com




Is it safe to assume that our world leaders, those who we entrust with the power to literally wipe out civilisation itself, are "stupid" at times? Or would it be wise to attribute their destructive actions to malice, not stupidity?

This is one terrible dilemma, one terrible challenge, which I believe is faced by all those who wish to change society. Difficult questions need to be asked, and answers need to be found. Are the resisting factors, those who create and extend the problems faced by this world, merely sheep? Or are they shepherds in their own right? How should a leader, one who seeks to improve the situation through transformation and recreation of the system, identify these people? Should they be treated as enemies, their actions attributed to malice alone, or should they be forgiven and dismissed as merely products of the broken systems they so valiantly defend?

If Hanlon's Razor holds true, then this problem is more of an adaptive challenge (Heifetz 2009 p19), one involving the minds of people, steering them onto your path through incentives, persuasion and appealing to their personal desires. If these resisting factors are lost sheep, then all they require is a shepherd to guide them.

If The Practice of Adaptive Leadership holds true, then this problem becomes more technical. These resisting factors are shepherds themselves, they have their own sheep, their own ideology and their own goals. They are an opposing army. Diplomacy becomes ineffective as both forces want to impose their beliefs onto the entire world.

There will be war.

The question remains, who is right? Hanlon or Heifetz? Does the system corrupt the people, or do the people corrupt the system? Or is it some intricate mixture of the two? I may find answers to these questions one day. But for now, I feel it is safest to assume that malice is the driving force of all these problems, that there is no broken system, only those who wish it to remain in the same form forever. But if I assume this, then I must also submit to the idea that there are those amongst us, in powerful positions, who in the name of progress, must be toppled from their high towers. Leaders must rise to the top of those vacant castle spires, and from there, pull the world up to new and amazing heights.

But for now, we must watch and wait.



References:

Heifetz, R Grashow, A Linsky, M 2009, The practice of adaptive leadership: tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world, Harvard business review press, Boston, Massachusetts.